Groban, In re

Citation128 N.E.2d 106,164 Ohio St. 26
Decision Date13 July 1955
Docket NumberNo. 34244,34244
Parties, 57 O.O. 70 In re GROBAN et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under the provisions of Section 3737.13, Revised Code, the state Fire Marshal may conduct a private investigation to determine the cause of a fire, and he may exclude from the place where such investigation is held all persons other than those required to be present.

2. If the Fire Marshal determines that such investigation shall be private, a witness called to testify therein is not entitled to be represented therein by counsel.

3. In such investigation a witness cannot be compelled to testify against himself.

4. To assert the privilege against self-incrimination, a witness must first be sworn.

5. The provisions of Section 3737.13, Revised Code, are not violative of the provisions of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or of the provisions of Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution of Ohio relating to self-incrimination and the right to representation by counsel.

In the Court of Common Pleas the petitioners instituted this action for a writ of habeas corpus in order to secure their release from the county jail to which they were sentenced by the state Fire Marshal for refusal to be sworn or to testify in an investigation which that official conducted concerning a fire on the premises of the Dresden Mills, Inc., Dresden, Ohio, on January 22, 1954.

The relief was denied by the trial court.

On an appeal to the Court of Appeals on questions of law, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was affirmed.

The cause is in this court on an appeal as of right on the ground that a debatable constitutional question is involved.

Graham, Graham, Hollingsworth, Gottlieb & Johnston, Zanesville, for appellant petitioners.

Frank H. Kearns, Pros. Atty., and Earl W. Allison, Columbus, for appellee respondent.

WEYGANDT, Chief Judge.

The investigation by the state Fire Marshal was conducted under favor of Section 3737.08 et seq., Revised Code.

The provisions under question in this action are those contained in Section 3737.13, Revised Code, which read as follows:

'Investigation by or under the direction of the fire marshal may be private. The marshal may exclude from the place where such investigation is held all persons other than those required to be present, and witnesses may be kept separate from each other and not allowed to communicate with each other until they have been examined.'

The reason given by the appellant petitioners for their refusal to be sworn or to testify was that the state Fire Marshal refused to permit them to have counsel present to represent them at the hearing.

The first contention of the appellants is that under the provisions of the above-quoted statute the Fire Marshal is not authorized to exclude counsel for a witness. However, the language is broad and provides...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Groban
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1957
    ...67 S.Ct. 1672, 1675, 91 L.Ed. 1903. This is a privilege available in investigations as well as in prosecutions. See In re Groban, 164 Ohio St. 26, 28, 128 N.E.2d 106, 108, and 99 Ohio App. 512, 515, 135 N.E.2d 477, 480; McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 17, 69 L.Ed. 158; ......
  • 82 20 Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1961
    ...F.2d 201; In re Knickerbocker Steamboat Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 139 F. 713; In re Groban, 99 Ohio App. 512, 135 N.E.2d 477, affirmed 164 Ohio St. 26, 128 N.E.2d 106 affirmed 352 U.S. 330, 77 S.Ct. 510, 1 L.Ed.2d 376; Allhusen v. Labouchere, L.R. 3 Q.B.D. 654; Fisher v. Owen, L.R. 8 Ch.D. 645. An......
  • State v. Warner
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • October 26, 1990
    ...or similar process by the special prosecutor promptly shall issue the subpoena or similar process. * * * " 12 In In re Groban (1955), 164 Ohio St. 26, 57 O.O. 70, 128 N.E.2d 106, affirmed (1957), 352 U.S. 330, 77 S.Ct. 510, 1 L.Ed.2d 376, this court by implication upheld an Ohio law which p......
  • Moe, Matter of, 6429
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1980
    ...State v. Konigsberg, 33 N.J. 367, 164 A.2d 740 (1960); In re Groban, 99 Ohio App. 512, 135 N.E.2d 477 (1954), aff'd, 164 Ohio St. 26, 128 N.E.2d 106 (1955), aff'd, 352 U.S. 330, 77S.Ct. 510, 1 L.Ed.2d 376 Maintaining the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings protects several important i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT